✦ Bombay High Court · 14 Jun 2007

IN APPEAL [LODGING] NO.341 OF 2007 v. P.M.A. Hakeem & Ors.

D G KARNIK3 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. Once it is not in dispute that by order dated 27-6-2006 leave was granted for initiation and completion of winding up proceedings and appointment of Liquidator for the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited and further that Liquidator was appointed under the order dated…

Judgment

Sarvasri D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate with G.R. Joshi, S.N. Vimadalal, Manish Doshi and R.P. Badani i/b M/s. Vimadalal & Co. for the Purchaser. Shri Deepak Raut for the Registrar Handloom & Textile Co-operative Society, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. Shri D.V. Deokar, Ist Asstt. to Court Receiver present. [2] CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM: CORAM: D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED: JUNE 14, 2007 DATED: DATED: P.C: P.C:P.C:

1.

Heard. By this chamber summons the appellant/U.P. Co-op. Spinning Mills Federation Limited is seeking leave to bring Shri Anurag Srivastava, District Magistrate, Kanpur, who has been appointed as the Liquidator of the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited by the Registrar, Handloom & Textile Co-operative Society, U.P. as the appellant in place of the U.P. Co-op. Spinning Mills Federation Limited. The affidavit in support of the chamber summons discloses that by order dated 27-6-2006 passed in Judge’s Order No.141 of 2006 in Suit No.2792 of 2000 leave is granted to initiate and complete winding up proceedings, for appointment of Liquidator for the U.P. Co-op. Spinning Mills Federation Limited in terms of Section 72 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and the same is also not in dispute and subsequently by order dated 14-8-2006 the Registrar, Handloom and Textile Co-operative Society, U.P. has appointed Shri Anurag Srivastava District Magistrate, Kanpur as the Liquidator of U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited. [3]

2.

The present appeal was filed in April, 2007. The same was purportedly filed by the U.P. Co-op. Spinning Mills Federation Limited, a co-operative society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act,

1965. Thereafter, on 27-4-2007 the present chamber summons was taken out.

3.

Once it is not in dispute that by order dated 27-6-2006 leave was granted for initiation and completion of winding up proceedings and appointment of Liquidator for the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited and further that Liquidator was appointed under the order dated 14-8-2006 for the said U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited, needless to say that in accordance with the provisions of law the appeal in relation to the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited could have been filed only by the Liquidator and none other. The Appeal Lodging No.341 of 2007 having purportedly been filed by the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited on 4-4-2007 when it could not have filed the same, in the eyes of law it is not maintainable and question of bringing Shri Anurag Srivastava, District Magistrate, Kanpur and the Liquidator of U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited as the appellant in place of the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited [4] does not arise at all. Initially the appeal itself being not maintainable, having been filed by the Federation which was already ordered to be wound up and for which Liquidator was appointed, and the same being on that ground not maintainable, question of bringing somebody as the appellant in a non-maintainable appeal does not arise at all. Hence the chamber summons is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (D.G.Karnik, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/J7cs683.7 sjs/J7cs683.7 sjs/J7cs683.7

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 — s. 72.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 14 Jun 2007. The bench was D G KARNIK.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments